No. It was weak. The only reason the PS2 could hold a candle to the gamecube was because of its coprocessors. That meant it was much, much harder to optimize games for it, though. The gamecube had a more familiar CPU and a better GPU. But developers who could figure out how to program for the PS2 properly could realize games on it that wouldn't work like that on the GC.
>>44194577 I'm not sure if the article you posted is legitimate because I didn't read it. But the Playstation 2 uses MIPS architecture which makes it a very secure computing system to protect against spying and other security threats. For example the Lemote Stallman uses has the same architecture.
>>44194927 I think the Ratchet and Clank series were hyper-optimized as fuck for the PS2, which is why they ran so good on native hardware and why their texturing and special effects go fucking bonkers during emulation.
Every console has that one game that is so goddamn optimized for it it might as well be done entirely in assembly it runs that good.
>>44195196 they seem to constantly come in a little too early, so by the time the competitors tech is out and most people are deciding between them, segas' tech is already a little bit out of date
like between the dreamcast and ps2 dreamcast had 1G cd's, which was cool, but dvd's were already emerging, and the ps2 got them, meaning 4.7 to 8.5G discs, and also the ability to play cutting edge dvd movies also technology was moving pretty fast during that time, especially with 3D, even between the dc and ps2, which are only 2 years apart, there's a pretty noticable gap in graphics fidelity (moreso imo than between ps2 and xbox, which were also 2 years apart)
>>44194978 >I think the Ratchet and Clank series were hyper-optimized as fuck for the PS2, which is why they ran so good on native hardware and why their texturing and special effects go fucking bonkers during emulation. I was going to post exactly this. Also, same company different series; Jak and Daxter. Looked absolutely brilliant and is a pain to get working on any emulator. Thankfully that series has been allowed to die but not before butchering it thoroughly with two spin off PSP games.
>>44195196 the dreamcast depreciated way too fast in terms of power also the fact that it didn't have very attractive titles imo, I mean sure the usual sport ones but other than that you didn't think at the time "oh boy, I'd sure kill for a dreamcast"
>>44195201 games look and ran similar simply because of dev laziness, multiplats are always shit in looks because they are developed for the less powerful console and then ported over to others, usually.
I like both the PS2 and GC, I feel both of them were really good gaming platforms and the last big serious machines of gaming. The generation after was weird as it's when all the internet thing began to become way more mainstream and injected into gaming. PS3 with weird architecture that promissed a lot but suffered because ports from 360 at first. 360 with their annoying live thing, faulty machines. Wii which had a good idea but was too foreign and didn't attract many developers at first.
If only 360 didn't bring cancer like enviroments to gaming, if only the PS3 had the upper hand with devs preference, if only the wii aimed for a bit more power and more familiar platform.
>>44194978 Ratchet and Clank games ran on the same Naughty Dog developed engine as the Jak & Daxter series, and that was an engine written specifically for the PS2.
Naughty Dog have since the original Crash Bandicoot been really good at optimizing the shit out of their games. With the original Crash Bandicoot people thought Sony had given them exclusive access to some hyper optimized libraries. However they later revealed that the game looked so good because most of the stuff on screen was actually pre-rendered, specially the levels which were just streamed off the disc one camera position at a time. This was the reason why all the levels were so linear, the game simply couldn't do open levels like Super Mario 64.
>>44195409 >games look and ran similar simply because of dev laziness, multiplats are always shit in looks because they are developed for the less powerful console and then ported over to others, usually. i do understand that, but i don't just mean multiplats
even the optimised single platform games looks quite similar between ps2/gc/xbox
Every time I think of the crazy shit that devs were able to pull off on old consoles it pisses me off that my dual core 1.2GHz Shitdragon smartphone can't even scroll through a webpage at a framerate anywhere near fluid.
>>44195432 the crash levels weren't prerendered, what they did was they ran through the stages and optimised what was visible and what was not, so they could max out the console at all times, while avoiding rendering invisible elements
>>44195486 IIRC it was always used as the sound processor...
Nintendo has done something similar for quite a while.
>GBA ran GBC games because it had a GBC CPU as a DSP for audio >DS ran GBA games because it had an a GBA CPU as a DSP for audio >3DS runs DS games because it has a DS CPU as a DSP for audio As for the GBC, the original Gameboy used a CPU that was basically a license built Intel 8080, and the GBC used a Zilog Z80, which is an upgraded 8080 with the same instruction set plus some new ones.
>>44195367 Processor interconnects and communication would fuck it up in a hurry. Plus i think the Cell used some variant of RDRAM which is laggy as shit.
Switching everything to x86 means devs which are familiar with coding on a normal computer can code for a console as well. That, and when porting is done the code requires a minimum of recompilation, which in turn keeps bugs introduced from porting down.
>>44195577 Java on x86 is still slow as shit comparative to other languages.
The only reason it's used anywhere is the ease in debugging code. It's much cheaper to throw more hardware at a problem than to throw more or better (or both) programmers at it. Efficiency-wise though, Java is fucking terrible on every platform.
>>44195526 The levels weren't pre-rendered as video, but as still images that were swapped out based on the position of the character. Sure, they mixed prerendered and non-prerendered elements, but the levels themselves were stills streamed off the disc.
They even did the same thing as Donkey Kong Country with all the wompa fruits, they were all pre-rendered 2D sprites.
>>44195564 try rendering and scrolling a modern site as-is on an old console
>Rasterising a bunch of text/shapes/gradients shouldn't be anywhere near as hard as rendering a dynamically lit 3d scene. why? the console has a chip specifically designed to quickly render a dynamically lit 3d scene, which itself is specifically designed to stay within the limits of said chip
>>44195409 >also the fact that it didn't have very attractive titles imo Launch titles on the US include Soulcalibur and House of the Dead 2, what more can you ask? Shenmue, Jet Set Radio, Grandia 2, Samba De Amigo, BH/RE Code Veronica, Skies Of Arcadia... Hell, for me arcade perfect port of Soulcalibur was enough. Quite literally it has the best 3D console games ever made.
>>44195635 Do you not think that phone GPUs would be optimized for things like rendering of CSS and HTML?
>>44195616 >Rendering text is actually not a thing to take lightly. What? Are you kidding me? Generate bitmaps for each character in the page at the current zoom levels, place them wherever they should go.
>>44195609 Yeah, it used Rambus XDR RAM that operated at a clock speed of like 3.2GHz with a freakin 64-bit memory interface. It ended up having a lot of memory bandwidth but latency was probably shit because of the high frequency.
>>44195688 A stacked Cell chip proposed though would still have interconnect and communication issues. Hell, intel with their recently released 18c Xeons have had to resort to an internal NUMA-like architecture to get them to work right.
>>44195716 Well, cpus and gpu are getting cheap enough that producing a very powerful console that's easy to program for is not a mindfuck anymore. We're still not quite yet there, hence why ps4 and xbone are still running custom-ish (but not quite as before) stuff instead of straight up pc parts.
I'd say for consoles to survive they need to go back to simple gaming machines with custom hardware that can be optimized for. Otherwise pc is going to be more and more attractive to console gamers since a low tier gpus are on par or above consoles.
>>44195831 Considering we're talking about mobile devices zooming is going to be something used quite a lot. Rendering for one zoom level is going to leave them awfully blocky when you zoom in, so rendering them from vector form based on what you're doing right now makes sense.
>>44195676 >What? Are you kidding me? Generate bitmaps for each character in the page at the current zoom levels, place them wherever they should go. >rendering easily ten thousands characters in a Unicode compliant manner as described by bytecode with conditionals.
>>44195811 The reason why no one did it before was because there literally was no choice for a low power chip other than Atom or Geode, and both sucked. On top of that they would have been forced to find someone to give them a decent GPU.
Then AMD comes along with a decent all in one x86 solution and the console makers are all over that like white on rice. All the console makers had to do at that point is get the memory set up, wire up the interconnects between the APU and the rest of the board, and slap it in a package useable to the masses. As a bonus the coders would be forced to optimize for multiple cores as both of them have 8 cores.
Feature-wise? No. It didn't support per-pixel lighting, so things like normal mapping and accurate specular lighting weren't going to happen. The Xbox did have those features, and in games designed to use them, the difference was massive. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=std9wKplilE
Not many PS2 games supported 480p, either, unlike the Xbox or even the Dreamcast.
On the bright side, I've heard that it had an above average fill rate, to the point where small objects in Gran Turismo 4 had to be taken out when those tracks were added to GT5.
>>44195941 With the money they spent developing the Cell (more than a billion) they could have helped subsidize a custom chip from AMD or Intel years ago. Instead they waited years as a nearly bankrupt AMD finally made something they could use on their own. In the meantime the PS3 practically bankrupted Sony.
The only real problem with the PS2 was the god awful image quality. It would either be jaggy, blurry or full of screen tearing. Absolutely no exceptions.
I have it on good information that the machine has more power under the hood than the Gamecube but a lot of it is squandered on some silly memory design and the buggy somewhat incomplete rasterizer. It's part of the reason textures look so bad despite the PS2 actually having a really good on-paper fill rate.
Nintendo really were geniuses with the Gamecube. Don't make it more powerful than the PS2 so you can save money, but design it so well that you can actually take advantage of every inch of power it has to offer.
>>44196018 Intel wouldnt have done it, or if they did they would have fleeced the fuck out of Sony for a custom chip. AMD couldnt do it, they had just purchased ATI and were flopping around with the dying days of Athlon 64. Via sure as hell couldnt do it, they havent been relevant since pentium 4.
i never really owned a gamecube, so i haven't played a huge selection of titles
among exclusives i've played ssb:melee, the RE1 remake, sm:sunshine, pikmin (briefly), loz: twilight princess/wind waker
i don't think the difference goes much past a few extra graphics effects though, the ps2's GPU is probably the part that aged the fastest, couldn't keep up with 2 year newer ATi/nVidia tech (not all that surprising)
>>44195941 When using a 250W PSU I'd hardly call the PS4 "low power" in comparison to anything but high end PC's. When it came out, the PS3 used a 380W PSU.
In comparison my (Prescott core) Pentium 4 and Radeon 9800 Pro machine that I got a couple of years earlier ran just fine on a 350W PSU. The thermal budget for the PS3 could have easily fit an Athlon 64 x2 and a mid range GPU from around the same time.
>>44195974 i was talking about rogue leader and rebel strike mostly. Those not only look better than almost anything on the ps2, but they run at around 60 fps most of the time. Panzer dragoon orta blows both of them out of the water though.
>>44195976 Actually some ps2 games did have normal mapping. Look at path of neo and hitman blood money. They did it on one of the vector units.
>>44196102 It didn't need to be an APU, the PS3 and 360 didn't have APUs until a few years ago as a cost cutting measure. AMD could have supplied a discrete CPU and GPU for less than the development cost of the Cell and it would have ensured backwards compatibility, and it could have stopped the PS3 from getting spanked by the 360 for years.
>>44196115 I owned both a PS2 and Gamecube, but I don't remember anything on the PS2 really impressing me. The image always felt incredibly blurry for some reason even after I got a SCART (common standard here in Europe) cable and that transfers the picture in pure RGB, so it wasn't the cable's fault. Gamecube games on the other hand were always crisp as hell even before I got an RGB cable for it as well.
I don't remember the PS2 ever having anything as great looking as the Metroid Prime series and Wind Waker still looks fantastic even without the WiiU HD upgrade. The PS2 GTA games always looked like crap in my opinion and they didn't play that well ether with awful gun play and cars handling like shopping carts full of rocks.
>>44195941 >On top of that they would have been forced to find someone to give them a decent GPU. But they were "forced" to do that anyway. The PS3 is running a modified GTX 7800, whereas the 360 was running a modified Radeon x1800.
The cell broadband engine wasn't exactly low power either. It was power efficient, sure. It was also ridiculously difficult to program for, which resulted in the technically inferior 360 actually performing better in some multiplatform games.
>>44196248 >The image always felt incredibly blurry for some reason a fair number of ps2 games abuse a motion blur effect that was pretty basic, i'm not a big fan of it unless it was only used at appropriate places (aka, not everywhere)
>The PS2 GTA games always looked like crap in my opinion and they didn't play that well ether with awful gun play and cars handling like shopping carts full of rocks. i played gta3 engine games on ps2, pc, and xbox all quite a bit, and i never noticed a difference between them graphics and gameplay wise, i don't think they changed much if anything between ports
>>44196312 >360 was running a modified Radeon x1800 not really though, it had 48 unified shaders capable of pixel / vertex shading, had 10MB of eDRAM on a daughter die that could also perform other ROP functions, and had a programmable hardware tessellation unit.
The Xbox 360 GPU was a truly custom chip that is in many ways more closely related to the 2900XT than the X1900.
>>44196318 >a fair number of ps2 games abuse a motion blur effect that was pretty basic, i'm not a big fan of it unless it was only used at appropriate places (aka, not everywhere) The problem with the blur was that it was present in games that didn't even use blur effects. The PS2 seems to have followed the PS1's haphazard policy of number of polygons over precision with haphazard rasterization.
>i played gta3 engine games on ps2, pc, and xbox all quite a bit, and i never noticed a difference between them graphics and gameplay wise, i don't think they changed much if anything between ports Considering those games were built for the PS2 and then ported over there's no wonder the Xbox versions don't look much better.
>>44196350 >>44196367 Yes, I was oversimplifying it to make my main point, which still stands. They were still "forced" to get a GPU from someone, somewhere. The underlying CPU architecture had no impact on that.
>>44195432 >Ratchet and Clank games ran on the same Naughty Dog developed engine as the Jak & Daxter series, and that was an engine written specifically for the PS2. Semi true, the two companies shared certain things, but the engine was not one of them, infact the companies worked together far less than people think
Source: R&C dev commentaries
But regardless, you're right in that it was optimized as fuck, some of the tricks they used to keep it running at 60 locked are witch craft.
>>44196403 Actually the reason why they had to dump a regular GPU in there was twofold and nether of those reasons had to do with difficulty of development.
The first reason was performance, the original configuration was supposed to have two CELL's and no dedicated GPU, but the performance of the chips simply fell short and they just had to botch a Nvidia GPU in there as fast as possible. One of the Nvidia engineers who was tasked to work on the project was so disgusted he just quit and wrote to a number of videgame news sites about how awful the PS3 is going to be.
The second was price, because as a big custom piece of silicon the CELL was very expensive to produce and you remember the outcry over the $600 launch price? Did you know that they even sold each $600 console at a loss?
>>44196376 Yes lol, custom Coppermine P3. >>44196386 >>44196431 No die shrinks, no price reductions, etc. There was never an original Xbox hardware revision because of this. I'm pretty sure an Xbox purchased in 2001 has the same power consumption as one purchased in 2004-2005.
>>44196464 Well that's odd... I remember reading from the UK Official Playstation Magazine (yes, I am ashamed at supporting Future Publishing) at around the time of the launch of the original Ratchet and Clank that it was a modified version of the Jak and Daxter engine.
>>44196431 If it was so generic then how come emulating Xbox games is a bitch and a half?
Or does that not matter when you need documentation because the retards who designed the system thought a capacitor was needed for timekeeping instead of a battery and you're screwed if said capacitor leaks?
>>44196525 The only things that changed between Xbox revisions were the PSU connector, the CPU fan being taken out, a video chip change in 1.4 and a final video chip change in 1.6 coupled with a different BIOS arrangement with the Xcalibur chip. Most pieces are 100% interchangeable, which is handy.
>>44196525 Die shrinks are not the only way to reduce production costs. As times goes on you generally pay up the costs of setting up production facilities as well as learn to apply techniques that give you better yields. At some point your manufacturing costs are basically just going to be maintenance, staff and raw materials.
>>44196557 Well right, I meant more like a redesign like most game consoles. >>44196598 Die shrinks reduce TDP so cases can be reduced in size, heatsinks can be reduced in size, power supplies can be reduced in size. All of these save money.
>>44196387 >The problem with the blur was that it was present in games that didn't even use blur effects. The PS2 seems to have followed the PS1's haphazard policy of number of polygons over precision with haphazard rasterization. yea, you're right, though the softness of the image wasn't always a bad thing, it also helps reduce flicker from interlacing, in addition to reducing the appearance of jaggies
i think i can agree the ps2's gpu wasn't as good as the gc/xbox gpus
the cpu (along with its VU's) competed quite well though (which is what the thread is focussed on)
as for the ps1, while i'd say anyone would prefer if it had a z-buffer and with it proper perspective, the lack of a texture filter didn't universally result in a worse image
>>44196562 The Gamecube was also pretty generic hardware and it's also a pain in the ass to emulate. However the Xbox didn't have very many true exclusives, a lot of "exclusives" coming out on PC, so it's only natural that it's going to be the console with the smallest emulation community.
The use of a resistor for time keeping doesn't mean the processing components aren't generic.
>>44196654 >The Gamecube was also pretty generic hardware and it's also a pain in the ass to emulate Is that true? Dolphin works pretty perfectly for me, maybe it's just because I have a fairly powerful rig though.
>However the Xbox didn't have very many true exclusives, a lot of "exclusives" coming out on PC, so it's only natural that it's going to be the console with the smallest emulation community.
That's semi true, the fact it doesnt have a great library is only part of the reason source: http://pulp365.com/last-console-crack-depth-interview-original-xbox-emulation/
>>44196644 I wasn't talking about texture filtering, but the precision at which polygons were rendered. A lot of developers talked about how Sony obsessed with trying to render as many polygons as possible while SGI, who were the ones behind the Nintendo 64 hardware, were obsessed with rendering precision instead.
>>44196677 GT4 and Tourist Trophy support 1080i via a component cable. If you have a modded PS2 and can run ELFs, you can get a nifty program called GS Mode Selector. You can force 480p, 720p or 1080i with it. I tried a few games - Odin Sphere looks great (although playing it on PS3 is better), Tales of the Abyss looks nice too, although it gains a small 'black bar' border.
another change was the bios chip, 1M (four banks) for 1.0/1.1, 256k (1 bank) for 1.2-1.5, and a 256k ROM for 1.6 (previous were flash chips) (all iirc) this affected some things, namely some modified bioses used the extra space in 1.0/1.1 for additional features, and of course in rev.1.6 you couldn't flash the bios (forcing a modchip or softmod instead)
>>44196704 The guy does sort of list a lack of people as the #1 reason and he talks about it being a console being a difficulty, not the hardware itself. The main technical difficulties he's talking about are emulating the custom extensions to the DirectX API that Microsoft made for the Xbox.
>>44196838 i don't think it's fair to compare 2D games and 3D directly
that and it's not like the snes and genesis were the best at 2D either, the neo geo destroyed them at 2D
of course, psx/n64 games are clearly primitive by todays standards, back then the possibilities of 3D was enough to overlook the obvious lack of polygons and rudimentary animation plus there's even some nice 2D games on the playstation, ever played castlevania: symphony of the night?
>>44196810 >i've always preferred psx graphics over n64 graphics You couldn't competently do large 3D worlds on PSX. As textures aren't perspective accurate you'll get glitches on trying to draw large amounts of terrain.
The only way around it is to draw a lot of polygons. Sure, that's what some games like Spyro did (combined with aggressive LOD), but then you've not no system resources left for anything else.
>>44197110 Thankfully mine is an US model already. I got a component cable for it, and damn it's good indeed.
I also have a lot of semi dead Xboxes that I need to check, but my old desktop with IDE just died on me. Gotta fix that first. Some don't boot, a couple have dead HDs. The ones that work do not read discs (god, the Xbox DVD drives are SHIT) - only one still reads them well.
>>44197207 hey, spyro looked and played wonderfully, i'd say it's one of my favourite game engines (and game series) on the psx
>>44197217 >Thankfully mine is an US model already saves a little work, once you change the eeprom in a PAL/EU unit, it works exactly like an NTSC/US console, there's no other difference i'm not sure why they disabled 480p/720p/1080i on PAL units in the first place
as for dead xboxes, if it's hdd related, chances are you can: 1. read the eeprom externally (i've done this a couple times, making a serial reader is dead simple) 2. use the eeprom to unlock the hdd and reformat/reinstall the official dash (plus softmod while you're at it ;) or if the hdd's dead, use the eeprom to make/lock a new xbox hdd from another (i presume you're familiar with xboxhdm?)
>>44197326 Yep, I've used xboxhdm. The two consoles with HDD problems are definitely just that because I can hear the click of death in the discs. I'll probably pull the HDDs from one of the dead Xboxes, if I can get their EEPROMs, that is. As for the EEPROM reader, I'll definitely get/make one once I'm done fixing the desktop.
The most interesting consoles of the lot are three with an Aladdin Advance chip. None of them boot correctly. It's either BLACK or stuck in Xbox logo. Tried booting with both front panel buttons, nothing different happened...
I've been forgetting about them, and when I finally started to work on them again, my trusty old desktop stops working. Damn.
Since you guys seem to know a lot about this subject, I've heard that people managed to decompile sonic 1 from the genesis, and recompile it into a byte perfect ROM that ran fine on the genesis/emulators. How exactly did they do that?
>The most interesting consoles of the lot are three with an Aladdin Advance chip. None of them boot correctly. It's either BLACK or stuck in Xbox logo. Tried booting with both front panel buttons, nothing different happened... if the modchip is dead you'd just need to unplug it from the xbox mobo and mod it another way
alternatively you could try reflashing the modchip, depends what's wrong with it (make sure it's in securely, no bad wires)
plus of course if it fails to boot with the modchip unplugged then it's something else, so try that first
no way to recover from a broken xbox hdd without the eeprom (since the xbox will refuse anything not locked with it's unique eeprom), so a serial reader is the simplest way to get them fixed
>>44197632 probably a later model xbox with the header partly unwired from factory
it probably has more wires underneath, too
unplugging it is probably enough, though i don't have a lot of experience with physical modchips
have you tried flipping its bank switch (while it's off)? assuming it has one
also, when it gets to the logo, does it show the "microsoft" logo underneath (or something else in the same place) if it doesn't, it might also be a hdd issue (the microsoft logo only shows up when the bios successfully hands over execution to/loads another executable, normally a game xbe on a dvd, otherwise the dashboard on the hdd)
>>44196431 I can remember when Halo 2 caught on and my brother and I wanted to buy an Xbox. It was nearly impossible to find since Microsoft killed it at the height of its popularity not because there wasn't demand but because it cost so much to produce (supposedly got MORE expensive as time went on since MS didn't own the IP And was dependent on their suppliers for what were no longer commodity parts after a couple years)
>>44196501 The evolutions of the PS3's performance over time is really weird. The first few years games looks and performed awfully vs. the 360, but later on PS3 games looked and performed worlds better than the 360 versions.
I guess the power really was there. It just took ~5 years to find it.
>>44198553 I read that the first PS3 SDKs were entirely in Japanese.
But also the firmware was updated to allow more memory to the game software over time.
The biggest benefit of the most impressive PS3 games was SPE programming though. The actual theoretical benefits of the Cell did pay off for those studios who had the time and expertise to spend so much time focusing on a single platform instead of other aspects of their cross-platform product. But that's kind of an unreasonable expectation for the modern games industry outside of first-party studios. That's probably why Microsoft's Azure stuff for the Xbone will never do anything interesting too.
>>44198506 Builds of Gran Turismo 5 from 2006 looked better than any other game at the time. Too bad they inundated the game with so many lackluster features and didn't release it until late 2010, at which point the competition had nearly caught up.
>>44198731 Cross-platform games toward the end still ran and looked better, generally, on the PS3. I suppose that's mostly down to licensed engine makers really figuring out the PS3.
GTA5 is an interesting case. I assume it runs on fundamentally the same engine as GTA4 and Red Dead Redemption, but while those games ran a lot better on the 360, GTA5 runs and looks significantly better on the PS3. Would be interesting to have Rockstar explain why that is.
>>44195380 the first time I saw someone playing Shadow Of The Colossus blew my mind cuz it had motion blur instead of fake motion blur bullshit like in GTA:VC, it looked pretty good. I'll play that game someday, bought a modded PS2 a few months ago just for that and Silent Hill 3, and the MGS series, I heard they're good.
>>44198950 GC was the most powerful by far, but very limited in where everything was heading.
Apart from the obvious - 1.4GB discs, the GPU was 'weird' for something new. It wasn't weird in general, it was actual a very powerful fixed-function GPU, but it was fixed function in a world that had already turned to programmable shader functions. This made it easy for idiots to port shovelware to and Japanese devs who abide by conversativsm to make some nice games. But all the good western devs were long gone fomr the fixed-function game, they loved the freedom programmable shaders gave them and ran with it - shit even as basic and hard to program as they were, the PS2 could do shader functions the GC simply couldn't - and the Xbox was a brogrammers' wet dream.
Programmable shaders allowed effects that would have taken weeks of busywork to make on a fixed-function pipeline - it's not that the GC couldn't have the BEST graphics, it's that making those graphics wasn't economical.
Also, GC did have online, not quite like Xbox Live, but then again XBL on the original Xbox was a very limited service that most of the world couldn't use either...
>>44199171 >GC was the most powerful by far, but very limited in where everything was heading
I've never heard anyone say that before. Even factor 5, the guys who made arguably the best looking gamecube games said you could do anything on the gamecube that you could on the xbox, but they never said it was more powerful.
>>44199415 what I meant with "fake motion blur" is that motion blur that looks pretty bad because it takes less resources of the graphics card to make it work, if you observe one single frame you'll see that there's no actual blur on the frame, the way it's made is by keeping the previous 2 or more frames on the next frame to make your eyes think there's motion blur, but there's not and it looks bad and it's annoying.
>>44195196 >>44197039 >>44195409 >>also the fact that it didn't have very attractive titles imo, I mean sure the usual sport ones but other than that you didn't think at the time "oh boy, I'd sure kill for a dreamcast" The titles may have with a few exceptions lacked major brand recognition, but what ultimately did Dreamcast in was the PS2's DVD player which brought normalfags into the market, bailing out the first of three shit launch lineups in a row to date.
For about a six month period, the highest selling title on the PlayStation 2 was pic related.
>>44196810 The biggest problems with the N64's visual output IMO was the decision to make the RCP's VI component always interpolate to a width of 640 pixels, which is why every game looks blurry as fuck. There is also the issue with textures looking blurry as fuck, but that was more the fault of lazy developers who didn't want to bother working around the small texture cache and just took a tiny texture and blew it the fuck up.
>>44198506 >>44198553 >>44198731 Getting the best graphics out of the PS3 requires divvying up graphics tasks between the proper GPU and the SIMD portions of the cell processor. It's a pretty nasty task, but towards the end of the PS3's lifespan some studios figured it out. Earlier titles suffered because the SIMD portions are damn near useless for more branching tasks like AI and graphics tasks are easier to just do on the GPU, so a good portion of the Cell just sat unused..
>>44200453 Even using a SCART, the N64 looked so terrible it made me nauseous - thanks, crappy video encoder. I could play it more than 30 minutes as a kid without getting headaches (serious). I get seasick easily too, mind you.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.